Jump to content

Talk:Sissy baby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Just noticed this article DD. Great job. This is valuable information. Thank you. --OrbitOne 6 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)

Thanks OrbitOne, and thanks for the cleanup work you've done to the topic!

Merging

[edit]

Maybe it is a good idea to merge this article with the main infantilism article after it has grown a bit. Davy Blue wishes to add a picture of a male in diapers, what better opportunity to add a sissy male picture? I wish to keep the female though, she models the clothing perfectly, one can clearly see each item in the picture and the lighting is even.

I think the Sissy side of things is unique enough to deserve a seperate page, and the main page is already larger than Wikipedia likes before they start recomending splitting a topic.

Also, there's a big difference between a diapered male and a sissy male, so the purpose of adding a male picture would not be served by doing it here.

I know there is a difference, but it may make the finding of a picture easier. You are right about the size, although we can argue the article is all encompassing about infantilism.

Overall Tone

[edit]

Having been led down the path begining with the Play Pen VfD I find myself here. This page does not achieve the standard NPOV required by Wikipedia. I'm not putting any tags on the page at this time, I'm trying to go softly here.

Have a look at the excellent BDSM article for an example of a potentially controversial topic treated in an encyclopedic manner.

Statements such as "Many Sissy Babies enjoy dressing in pink, frilly dresses[...]" are simply not going to work. Firstly, how many and what are your sources? Secondly, the use of phrases like "pink, frilly dresses" has rather more, um, focus, than is appropiate. I could go on: the unnecessary list of baby items, the completely unattributed discussion of penis size, the use of "Mommy" and "Daddy", the photo. By Darwin's dog, the photo has got to go, it is totally inappropiate. Again, compare the the photo on the BDSM page - it's not salacious, but clearly illustrates the article.

In faith,
brenneman(t)(c) 13:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, start to counter your points. Sources would be the many polls done at ABDL websites which show a strong trend towards these dresses, and yes the details about the dresses might seem graphic to you, they are very factual, such as many gators are green and have tough skin.

Also, the section about mommy and daddy and penis sizes are (professional) psychological reflections, not guesses. --OrbitOne 12:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS. That picture is of a guy, not a girl.

Actually, the photo is of a girl, and was chosen to highlight that in this definition "sissy" refers to the role/clothing, not solely an effeminate male.

  • Orbit - when you open a window to edit, it says very clearly at the bottom "Please cite your sources so others can check your work." Until you do that, both "many polls done at ABDL websites" and "professional psychological reflections" are pure POV. And there is factual and overly factual. While both of the statements "I have a sandwich" and "I have a thick, fresh, aromatic sandwich" are quasi-factual, one reveals a bit more about my stomach's POV than the other one does. And it doesn't matter if that picture is a boy, a girl, or a shaved monkey. It's not appropiate. If we can't have a more neutral image, than I'd prefer to have no image. brenneman(t)(c) 11:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you happy now? Seemed pretty simple, and I am sorry I am not allowed to link directly to the polls, you need to pass age verification first. __ Orbit. (Unsigned comment by 80.62.170.94. - brenneman(t)(c))

I swear I do not know what you mean about a more "Neutral" image. It is an accurate depiction of Sissy Baby attire. (Unsigned comment by 66.25.103.94. - brenneman(t)(c))

The Picture

[edit]

The picture is of neutral tone showing no private parts and covering much of the skin. It shows what sissy babies like to wear, it is not porn for the masses and is indeed legal for all ages. (Unsigned comment by OrbitOne. - brenneman(t)(c))

I am the copyright-holder on the image and have released it into the public domain. As stated by the Public Domain tag revealed when you click on the image DailyDi (Edit by DailyDiapers. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, better proof can not be provided, I doubt either side will want to use the time and energy to mail each other any solid proof and agreement. You can go to Daily Diapers and find the picture if you want to, but that still wont prove ownership of copyright better than "I took that". You gotta accept what has been put up as is. (Unsigned edit by OrbitOne[1]. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Are you one person or two DailyDiapersOrbitOne? Sorry to ask, but when I go looking through the history to see who wrote what, the above looks odd. All puppetry questions aside, I'd rather argue about the more substantative issue of POV. Given the choice between the current article without the picture and having the picture remain on a more neutrally toned article, of course.
    brenneman(t)(c) 01:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DailyDiapers: I am not OrbitOne, he started the Infantalism and other articles, I - at the request of some friends - decided to clarify the difference between Diaper Lovers and Sissy Babies. The photo was shot for me, and has been released into the public domain. I will be glad to provide the model release which shows it to be my property to Wikipedia, but will not simply post it here or elsewhere as that would be a breach of privacy laws in the country where the release was signed. I am sure you understand the reasons behind not wanting to post a very pretty lady's personal information online.

  • If that was an offensive question, I apologise unreservedly. The lack of a consistent signature, the discontinuity between responses above, and the penchant for alliteration caused me to ask. (Of course, the problem with a question of this nature is that clones never fess up... perhaps it is better not to ask.) I'm puzzled by your claim that a model release is covered by the privacy act, but am willing to give away the photo in exchange for a NPOV article.
    brenneman(t)(c) 00:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


DailyDiapers: No problem. The model release is covered by the privacy act as it contains her real name, address, phone number and a copy of her ID... this is too much info to publicly post for just anyone to access.

As to NPOV, I honestly am not understanding what you have a problem with there. In the original article I addressed the different types of Sissy babies, as well as the arguments as to what role the Sissy baby is. Perhaps it would help ME if you were to give me a better idea of what it is you are not finding here that you're looking for?

What babies like

[edit]

We have a number of polls still going on actually, they are not closed yet, but they do show what sissy babies like to wear already. When they are closed, would it make you happy to see the exact results? (Unsigned comment by OrbitOne. - brenneman(t)(c))


Daily Diapers, Sissy Beckys and Bytemine are all reliable sources, just because you never heard of them does not mean they are gone with the wind sites. --OrbitOne 09:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The List

[edit]

The list of baby items is a simple list to put forward as simple as possible what Sissy Babies like or what items are associated with this fetish. Can you point out anything exact that goes against the policy of wikipedia in that list? --OrbitOne 09:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is pretty much the best way to present NPOV information. Plus, it is a list giving the reader a good idea what is used by a sissy baby, it is not a random list of words with no context. --OrbitOne 09:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC) And why are you trying so hard to close these articles down? If you have a problem with ABDL, then go find someone else to play with.[reply]

I am being civil. I asked why you have such a problem with ABDL and made a suggestion that if you do not like the subject in general, that you can look for something else that holds your interests instead of being extremely strict with the rules. I doubt most other articles are held to such a high standard as you are trying to hold the ABDL and Sissy Baby articles to.
(Unsigned comment by 80.62.170.94. - brenneman(t)(c) 13:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • You're not, really, being civil. Unless you're using some Klingon version of the word that I don't recognize. As I mentioned on Talk:ABDL, I have looked over your edits (Talk:Infantilism) and seen that this "go away" tactic has worked for you before. I'm pretty calm by nature, and am not put off by bluster. I have to my memory never expressed a personal opinion on the subject of ABDL, or demonstrated that I "have such a problem with [it]." I'd ask that you look over Wikiquette, and consider if you have behaved in good faith, both to me and to others. I mentioned Village pump or Requests for comment, but Wikiquette alerts will probably be the next stop if we can't conduct ourselves.
    brenneman(t)(c) 13:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


No, asking you if you have a problem with the subject is very civil and very direct. The list in my opinion is in good context to the article and isn't something special that can not be found in many other articles. I suspect you have a problem with the subject though because you have held the articles to the highest of standards, and instead of dancing around to figure out if you do or dont, I'd rather cut to the chase and ask directly. If you wish to help these articles, then please make suggestions for which changes we can make. -- OrbitOne

Large scale changes.

[edit]

As you have not addressed several points above, I've proceeded with the following changes:

  1. Removed unsupported percentages:
    Unsupported by who? --OrbitOne 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See comments about unbiased sources
    YOu still havent made a point. --OrbitOne 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if correctly sourced, this level of detail not required.
    Yes they are because you insisted on seeing the numbers. --OrbitOne 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if it were required, it wouldn't belong above the fold.
    I will place them somewhere else. --OrbitOne 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Removed the list of items:
    Added context to the list so it is explained to some depth as to what the toys are used for. --OrbitOne 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See points two and three above.
    Did --OrbitOne 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Removed phrase "There are two basic types of Sissy Babies":
    Why exactly did you do this? --OrbitOne 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there more complicated types?
    Again, why? --OrbitOne 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't need to be told there are two when two are listed.
    Again, why? --OrbitOne 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Punishment babies desire for punishment:
    I hate repeating myself. Again, why? --OrbitOne 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, no unbiased source for claims.
    According to who? You? --OrbitOne 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sissy baby as dominant:
    • Trimmed heavily, my "NPOV" making muscles are wearing out.
    Then take a vacation. --OrbitOne 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. External links:
    • "Member polls, Daily Diapers website"
      • As the major contributer has the same name as this website and claims to have access to the poll results which aren't yet on the website, this looks like self-promotion.
    He supplied the poll, you demanded a source. You got your wish, it can not be helped that he is the same guy who runs the website. --OrbitOne 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "ByteMine"
      • Does this have any actual content? Even the suggested searches (boots, panties, bdsm) return nothing.
    It is a cleaver way of keeping kids and people who have no idea what ABDL is out. Type in ABDL into the search and you are taken to bytemines front page. It is like a general password to make sure people are not too offended. --OrbitOne 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sissy Beckys"
      • Well, it doesn't work... as advertised in the link itself.
    You asked for the sources yourself, but I understand this one. --OrbitOne 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to refer this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Village pump, please do so.
brenneman(t)(c) 13:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polls

[edit]

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Evaluating primary sources (Emphasis mine):
Evaluating primary sources

  • Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident.

Conclusions rendered from this poll showed only 60%, or a little over half of sissy babies like lace. If out agenda was to make all sissy babies wear and love lace, why not report 90%? We did show over 90% like to wear diapers, but that is also a common link in ABDL and Infantilism. --OrbitOne 08:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary.

These people are at a website and the results are based off of a poll for sissy babies to directly vote what they like to wear. They are primary sources, we are simply reporting exactly what they voted. --OrbitOne 08:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Find out what other people say about your sources.

Okay, I will, that is why I asked another mod to get involved. --OrbitOne 08:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.

They reported the results from this poll, but this is the first release DD has made, but does that mean they are not allowed to report on this one even though we are the only ones to make such a poll? --OrbitOne 08:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are they available for other editors to check?

Yes, they are. --OrbitOne 08:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My final comments on this:

  1. Online polls are almost useless sources of fact. I'd give a whole lecture here on sample selection bias and sampling without replacement, but it really shouldn't be required, as it is just good sense.
Please, give that lecture any ways. --OrbitOne 08:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Your insistence on including this information (which adds very little to the article) appears to be an excuse to add the link.
No, it was because you insisted on us quoting a source for us to say most sissies like lace and frilly things with the color pink. When we did a poll, you insisted on a link. When we included all the information, you deleted all of it. --OrbitOne 08:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If this information is added back in I will take the procedural steps I have noted above.
I took my own steps thank you very much, I do not listen to threats that often. --OrbitOne 08:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

brenneman(t)(c) 23:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I am sorry, but DD is reliable, but then we can go back to pointing out how you insult an ABDL. We did not doctor these results and the results are from actual users. Another study by a doctor would be no more acurate unless he or she looked under the dress. As for what sissy babies like to wear, you can not be any more acurate by using paper and pen polls because it is still the opinion of the sissy baby as to what they like to wear, the results of which are being reported factually. You asked for results, we gave you results. We backed our claims up, but it still is not good enough for you.
You also take it in to your own hands to clean this article up with a whirlwind of deletion then pointing out what ever you want AFTER you deleted large sections instead of bringing any concerns up before you take unilateral actions. This I will not tolerate and have taken this up with another mod. I know you are going over alot of lines here.--OrbitOne 08:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insults, self-selection bias, and Wikilove

[edit]

To make adressing the points easier, I will cut them up and address them point by point. --OrbitOne 12:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm trying very hard to be nice to you, but you don't seem to realise that. It appears that every contribution is interpreted as a personal attack. I'm sure that I can be curt, but I've the closest thing I've come to any value judgement is my reaction to the photo. As it is remotely possible that that is the cause of your hostile and obstructive attitude, I deeply regret the manner in which I commented on this photo. The relevence and appropiateness of a picture such as this in an article that only posits the existence of female sissy babies is moot.
  • Please take some time to experiment in the Wikipedia:Sandbox and use the preview button when editing, as well as consistantly signing your edits. Again, I'm not trying to be rude, but if and when other editors come to try and sort this out, clean edits with real signatures help them. The changes you made to the above sections are good examples. This dif [2] isn't that instructive, but compare your version and my version of the "Large scale changes" section. Putting a point-by-point reply inside the original points makes it very hard to follow for other editors, especially if there are more that three points. It makes my contributions appear unsigned, and is just messy.
  • It's important to follow what the other person is saying as closely as you can. There's no tone of voice, no body language, just text. If you make a mistake about the other person's intent and stick with it then you won't hear anything else that they say. If we look at the "micropenis" fandango:I quote cite your sources from the footer of the edit page. You respond with the online poll, I respond (churlishly, I admit) with wiki referances. You respond with "would it make you happy to see the exact results?" From that point we have not once actually communicated about the polls! You hammer on about the numbers and my demand to see them... which I never did.
  • I simply cannot fathom why anyone would think that online polls are reliable sources. Rather than listening to me, please examine these links:
    • Sometimes, the net is the only realistic method to make a poll. If you think telephone polls and more reliable in this case, please demostrate, but I can not fathom myself anyone called enough people just to reach a handfull of ABs and Sissy Babies, a fraction of which would even divulge information to answer if they are or are not.-OrbitOne 12:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a bit of my own medicine and looking over "what you're actually saying", it is clear that you are taking the word bias in a negative way. If I used the word interest instead, would that seem less aggresive? The fact is, a poll on a ABDL website about ABDL cannot be impartial. I wouldn't take a Wikipedia poll about how Wikipedians behave very seriously, to be fair!
    • I am on level with a fourth year college student taking a pysc major thank you, and this is not just on the issue of ABDL, although I take a special interest in how adults cope with childhood abuse and neglect, most of which is via drugs and beer. Although ABDL does hold a special interest to me, can you explain it any better?-OrbitOne 12:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm assuming that you're responding to the point below this one, because I don't see how your answer relates to my question. Not that it's important, but what does "am on level with" mean? Because I would make the wild assumption that someone who has studied for four years in psychology at an accredited university would understand problems with polls of this kind.
        brenneman(t)(c) 06:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has it occured to you that you might be too close to this issue to see it impartially yourself? By your admission, you (collectivly) had a poll done on a website linked by you on this page to retroactivly support material that you had presented here. Are you immune to even the possibility that there is a conflict of interest?
  • I'm sorry that you interpreted my comments about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution as a threat. I can see how the phrase "...I will take the procedural steps..." appears as such. Please refer to the sections above that as well as Talk:ABDL where I asked that we take these steps.
  • You edits can easily be taken, as I have stated before, as uncivil. The fact that you do not moderate them (e.g. "Then take a vacation."), combined with the fact that this tactic has been employed by you to good effect before (see Talk:Infantilism) challenges my wikifaith indeed.
  • All of my "unilateral" edits have been accompanied by extensive talk page comments.
  • And finally, as you have failed to address the reasons for most of my changes, I'm going to put most of them back.

(Note the outermost unsigned points above are by brenneman(t)(c) 13:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Mediation

[edit]

Hey guys, I'm gonna be rude and comment on your discussion. Actually its more of a request than a comment. I have tried to read what is on this page, but I am a bit unsure what exactly to make of it. However, there seems to be a dispute over sources here. So what I would like both of you to do is to give me a short list of what you feel should constitute an article and the sources you claim can back them up. Do this and we'll talk. Disregard the dispute for a bit and just list what you feel should be there, not what you think the other one should feel what should be there. The first step to find a solution is to make sure there is a possibility that both parties can talk to eachother.

So a good clean list of a couple of points from each of you about what the article should consist of, what sources you have, and that's it. If you allow me, I'll be the judge of whether what you say is a good idea and if anything of what you both say can be merged into one, or if there is some agreement on some of the points. Does that sound ok to you guys? Inter\Echo 13:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me and DD can have the list made in a couple days. The mediation sounds good to me. --OrbitOne 16:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I have also gotten a request to take a closer look at this and one other talk page. I'll try to get an overview tomorrow or the day after. Inter\Echo 20:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

[edit]

Can we have no compromise here? The article started at A, I did a re-write Z. How about trying and meeting at M instead of just reverting to A?
brenneman(t)(c) 23:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather have Inter mediate this. I can not meet you at M after you went so wild with deleting large parts, which does not count as a rewrite. -- OrbitOne

Also, would you please let people peer reveiw the pre-deletion version before you start your massive deletions. We are butting heads here and I would like to have this peer reveiwed by others before any changes are made. I think that is a fair request. -- OrbitOne

  • I am truly sorry that you feel I "went wild" and deleted "massive" sections of this page. I have tried to work out a compromise, and every change has been well commented here. I'm sorry that you feel that I haven't tried to work with you. I won't try to assign blame to this communication failure, that would be pointless, plus it could be me! But clearly it has occured.
  • I'm not sure you've understood peer review correctly. It is meant for articles of near feature quality. The correct place was Requests for comment, where it is also listed.
  • Being listed in either one place or the other doesn't mean editing stops. Almost nothing means editing stops, really, not even VfD. And even if it did mean that, why would one version be more appropiate than the other to "freeze" the page on?
  • I have been a bit rough with you, reverting your changes as soon as you revert mine. This is not how things are done, and I apologize.
  • I'm going to place the "two versions" header.

brenneman(t)(c) 12:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there are attempts at compromise here. A revert war solves absolutely nothing. A couple of points on your points Aaron:
  1. You say there has been a communications failure. Is there a chance that alot of misunderstandings have been going on? For a revert war to start, there is obviously a dispute over content, or is this more a dispute over what the editors feel about eachother? I'd like to know from both parts, not just Aaron here.
  2. It's true what is said in the next point. RfC is for this kind of dispute, although I am not entirely sure this dispute is only over content. If it is not, we need to work on two separate processes. I'd suggest that the article be taken off Peer review while this dispute is ongoing. I did not know it was listed on RfC, which of course I could have found out but I havent reviewed the RfC listings for a while. As you may be aware of, an RfC is the next step up from mediation in the Dispute Resolution Process, but hopefully the RfC can lie dormant while we talk to eachother.
  3. Aaron says he's been a bit rough. Things can get a bit rough sometimes, as long as the No Personal Attacks policy is observed, that's perfectly ok. If you, OrbitOne, can tell me (and the rest) if this affects your opinion of Aaron or the article, please do.

The thing that I am most wary of is if a personal dispute lies beneath a content dispute. Trying to resolve the content dispute usually goes nowhere since there is a deeper problem at work. I may be completely wrong here! You all need to comment on what I have written and also the list I requested would help put things in perspective. As I said, I would like both parties to come up with points that they feel should either be improved or complaints about the other editor. Then we can work with that and find out if there is any compromise. Keep it short and to the point if at all possible. Inter\Echo 08:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought peer reveiw was used for all articles, not just near featured, but I see I am mistaken. I wanted one version reveiwed because what you want to have as an article is far different from what me and DD want and have written. We feel what we have written is what would meet your wishes, and trust me, we did alot to try to meet what you wanted. DD made a new poll (to which I must ask, how do you poll sissy babies without asking sissy babies?) with good access to the public and we made the numbers public on wiki so you can see the exact results. We also quoted our sources, repeatedly, something you demanded and then were a critic of. Me and DD went out of our way to meet your demands and now we would like to have Inter mediate this so we can have this over with in a fair manner. -- OrbitOne

The problem with this is that you can't really review an article where a dispute is ongoing because it would do no good. :) So I'm suggesting taking it off PR and also RfC due to it being the next step in the dispute resolution process. You're saying that you have tried hard to meet Aaron's wishes, where clearly he thinks otherwise. On what points? I would apprechiate something concrete from both of you, as it's so much easier to discuss and eventually find a compromise among points of what you all think should be in the article and what shouldnt. Inter\Echo 08:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I could make a suggestion. I wouldn't include the poll which is currently included in the article because I wouldn't consider the website it was made on to be authorative on the subject. But that is of course up for debate. Inter\Echo 09:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


After some consideration, I think the following sections should be kept.

  • A short list of toys (with planned rewrite to this section to give more context to list)
  • Types of sissy babies with the two first sub types untouched. The recent poll (pending the allowance of others) should be moved to the talk page and link to source included. Source is a community of sissie babies, but is the only place doing a publicly open poll. Other polling methods would requier large (over a few thousand phone calls) to poll a small number of Sissy Babies and there is doubt they would divulge such information. In contrast, the current poll asks sissy babies directly.
  • Female sissies (this section might need a little expansion, this section is more a side note to acknowledge the exsistance of female sissies)
  • Sissy Baby as a Dominant Role (This is a realistic and objective observation, but should be rewritten a little bit pending a reveiw by third party to ID any POV lines in this section)

--OrbitOne 11:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Inter!

Something that should have been done straight away - Being the "middle man" is hard work, and I appreciate someone volunteering. Have a biscuit →
It is a good idea to be wary of an underlying personality (or morality) problem:

  • I'd be lying if I said I was not (by this stage) pretty annoyed.
  • It would be inaccurate to say that is the cause of the current state of affairs.
  • E.G. This is Wikipedia, asking for things to be "untouched" is anti-wiki.

As to what I'd like to see in this every article:

  • Only include material that adds to the encyclopedic value if the article and that is not duplicated elsewhere. A list of items does not add value to this entry. A discussion of them should probably go in Infantilism.
  • NPOV maintained. More specifically, use of neutral language (for example "role-play parent"
    not "Mommy or Daddy".) Include only material that meets Cite_sources and Reliable sources.

brenneman(t)(c) 05:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. OrbitOne is focusing on the content while Aaron is focusing on personalities. If OrbitOne got no quarrel with Aaron but it is the other way around, I'd like to know why and how a compromise about the why can be reached. Is that possible? Inter\Echo 12:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. I mean at all. Is it possible we are having problems communnicating because of different versions of english? I'm quite earnest, I just don't know what you're saying. Can you just say that differently?
    brenneman(t)(c) 15:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Please note, I made the above suggestions myself and Inter didnt say the website was totally unusable and it should be up for a debate. Also, lists are found in other articles, but I will say we can meet half way on this one and delete the list, however, wiki is an open sourced resource and sources are not always perfect, infact, if you want to hold all of wiki to such strict rules, there will be little wiki. Listen, this isn't my job, I do not write entries as a profession, nor do most other writers here. I am adding my knowledge of this lifestyle for other users just as they do for me on other subjects like biodiesel. This will not be a perfect article, but it is good enough and can improve if you let it. If it has to meet all these standards, then there will be no article at all and most other articles will disappear as well. The neutral language we can also meet half way on. Mommy and Daddy are the point blank ways of putting the roles, but lets say the Dominant roles are assumed by the "Mommy" and "Daddy", okay? --OrbitOne

This sounds reasonable to me. What say you Aaron? Inter\Echo 12:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'm afraid I don't understand what they question is.
    • You're saying we're debating the website below, I agree with the fact we're debating it.
    • You're saying we don't have to have the list, ok have you looked at what I had put it it's place? That way you get the information in with out the list. It's tiny right now, though. [4]
    • I think you're saying we should have lower standards? Is that right?
    • I don't understand at all what you're saying about the neutral language. Again, I'm sorry. I don't know what's wrong.
brenneman(t)(c) 15:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or is everybody acting kind of like babies here? ;) (ducking and running) In all seriousness, y'all are doing a good job not letting this get out of control. My own two cents is that even with the statistics and whatnot this article still seems short enough that the content might be more useful merged with the main article. ZacharyS 07:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The DD website

[edit]

Well, the website is a large community of sissy babies and it was used only to poll them with a simple set of questions so we could report them here. Although it is true their job is not to explore what ABDL is exactly, who would know better what it means to be a sissy baby or AB than either of the two?

I feel the website as a quoted source is okay since it was an objective poll about what they do wear and like, not opinions with comments and letters. --OrbitOne 11:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions on this? Inter\Echo 12:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll give my opinion in two sections, a shorter one and a longer one.
  • Short I'd prefer a more impartial study. You mentioned at the earlier in this discussion "professional psychological reflections". I'd like something like that, a published paper that discussed even one case would provide some objective viewpoint.
  • Longer (I.e. Why I don't like this source.) Ok, if I look at this poll [5],:
    1. The first problem right now is that I can't see the questions. Was it free-form text answers, radio button, tick boxes, etc. I don't recall from when I looked before, I was looking for the results at the time. Different questions get different answers.
    2. I notice some "non sampling" errors also; for example you ask about pink but not any other colours. Do you see how this can colour the result? If I like pink and yellow and black and grey equally, this question won't detect it, I'll just answer "Yes". A different kind of questioning bias is "Do you have micropenis or are you underdeveloped?" The answers are "yes, no, no but smaller than average." See, if 5,000 guys with giant penises and 10,000 girls took this survey, they would probably just leave this blank, and you would never know.
    3. I didn't have to sign in (eg user name and password) to this site, so this poll probably had sampling error as well as non-sampling error. This means we don't know who we missed, and we don't know who we counted that we shouldn't have. For example, if there were a large group of Victorian sissy babies? This website might not attract them, and thus they'd never vote. On the opposite side, people who did vote here could have voted multiple time, for instance a single person who really likes Rhumba panties could vote once every five minutes (or even just once a day) and skew the results because:
    4. The sample size is too small.
  • But why are we arguing about this poll? Why can't we find somewhere else to source this information? Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability about this, and especially Wikipedia:Verifiability#Obscure topics.
brenneman(t)(c) 15:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Nope, we cant. Only other way would be to spend a bit of money to reach all the babies we can and to install an IP tracking system. If you are willing to work with us on this one, then I am willing to put in extra effort, but this will not be one sided where I do all the work and risk you dismissing it again. --OrbitOne 10:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict

[edit]

I am willing to go into a conversation with him as to what should the content be made of, but I do wish to have someone mediate this because DD and I have worked hard to fulfill his wishes and he has ignored or been a sharp critic of our attempts. I really dont have a problem with him personally, only his actions and they say once bitten, twice shy. Only comment I have about him as a subjective comment is, I believe he has a problem with ABDL and sissy babies and infantilism in general. --OrbitOne 11:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no conflict. I'm not taking anything personally, I'm not emotionally involved in this subject, I have no special interest in this, um, lifestyle. You believe I have "a problem". Please provide examples of this.
    brenneman(t)(c) 06:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very quick deletions and lack of any decent chat over what you object before acting. --OrbitOne

I'm gonna be a little stern here and say that while the article is currently undergoing mediation, there will be no editing it. I see that there hasn't been much since we started and that's good. I will protect it if somebody involved in the conflict is editing the article. That said, let's have a conversation about what's there and what's not. See my replies to the sections above and let's get some constructive viewpoints out in the open. What about doing it section pr section of the article? Start with the lead, then go down the list and adding viewpoints on what needs to be there and what doesn't. Is there anything that you both could add? Like for instance if you have two viewpoints of something, you can include that discussion in the article so to illustrate that there are more than one viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with this in the wiki, as long as it's NPOV and neither viewpoints gets more coverage than the other. Does this spark any ideas with either of you? Inter\Echo 12:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

[edit]

Since infantilism does encompass Sissy Babies to an extent, maybe merging the article with Infantilism would be a good comp? But I would like to have a couple things in return for this. Aaron cant comment on the pictures in infantilism, pictures are needed to become a featured article, and I would like to keep him barred from putting up a VfD for Infantilism. Once bitten twice shy and all. Another person starting the vote is okay though. I understand Aaron is trying to keep NPOV, but he has so far given very little depth in what he means before deleting sections himself. I do wish he explains what he means when he says a section is POV and give me the exact sentance so we can have a real chat about it instead of vauge statements.

I realize that most of that will not be met, but going into depth when he says POV and a period of a few days before action is taken so there is a chance to talk about what he means is the very least of what I need inorder to work with him.

Can we agree on this? --OrbitOne 11:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Aaron would agree on this is one thing, but you have to remember that anybody can pretty much do anything here and I do not have any say in who can do what. That's not even why I'm here right now. Like I said, read my replies above, no more deletions and editing. Let's work out the problems before doing anything more. It serves no good. So let's discuss whats wrong with the article and what you guys feel are needed to fix it. We also need to find a compromise with all those things. Inter\Echo 12:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'm hesitant to comment because I'm not sure what we're saying. The part I think I understand are:
  • Suggestion to merge some content into Infantilism. That article is pretty much off my map, the only edits I've made there are (I think) to red links and re-directs. Oh, I see (looking at my contributions now) that I also moved some links to the talk page and put a couple of images up for copyvio.
  • That I can't nominate this article for VfD or even comment on the picture. This is a truly remarkable request, and I am stunned by it. That's the sort of result you get from WP:RfAr.
  • The rest seems to be about me personally?
brenneman(t)(c) 15:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediations

[edit]

Not you personally, but your actions. You have the power to screw everything up and I dont have the time or will to undo it and explain it. Go wild now and delete it all, I give in. --OrbitOne 08:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could I direct your attention to the section directly above this one. Can you guys discuss my proposals there? And also, either Aaron doesn't understand what OrbitOne is saying or he doesn't want to. It appears to me that you're both talking to eachother without talking to eachother, if you know what I mean. I propose that we don't demand anything from eachother and try to discuss content, since everything else seems to fail. Let's focus on the content. Inter\Echo 11:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that Inter, didnt work. Thanks for trying to mediate this, but I dont have the time or energy any more. He won, we lost, we couldnt even compromise, he gets his way. His demands that we follow the rules to the letter is too stressing. He cant accept sources that we supplied, he cant accept that maybe we are the best sources out there, he demands that any poll be done on a national level it seems, and if we cant step up to supply these large demands, he just acts. I give up, others gave up, we dont want to do this fight any more. If he feels so strongly about either the rules of wikipedia or this subject that what we have already supplied isnt good enough, then we will never be able to write this article to our own satisfaction, it is impossible for us. He won, he gets to edit it to his own satisfaction now. --OrbitOne 12:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit of a shame you see it that way. There are always patience and discussion in my world. I notice Aaron hasn't commented on this. Any thoughts Aaron? Inter\Echo 19:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hadn't commented because it seemed that it would be rude to do so. I've never seen this as a "win/lose" contest, or even a contest. I didn't want to rub salt in the wound, as it were. I feel that Orbit is not actually discussing thing with me, but with some ubër-aggressive version of me that he's created. I am sorry.
brenneman(t)(c) 08:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that what I say usually isn't commented by both of you, just one. This section however is and I think that is a little progress. But there's obviously misunderstandings going on here as I get the impression that the both of you are trying to seriously write a good article, but neither of you understand what the other really wants. And this I feel is the crux of the problem. So let's try a different approach. What about making two articles, /temp1 and /temp2. Aaron does it like he wants in temp1 and OrbitOne does it like he wants in temp2. Then we look at each article and discuss how to merge them. Is that an idea? Oh and Aaron, about the personality comment I made, what I meant was that I thought you had a more personal dispute with how OrbitOne acted, while OrbitOne seemed to focus more on what content the article was supposed to have. Nothing else. :) And I see now that I was mistaken, as it appears to me that both of you are more concerned about the content than anything else (which is good!). Anyway, that is my idea. Tell me what you think. Inter\Echo 13:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two versions?

[edit]
  • Well, I placed the "Two Versions" tag while ago... Since Orbit appears uncomfortable with me taking things away from the current version, why doesn't he add things to the other version while the current stays in place? I'd be happy to have the tag off the main page while this was happening. This raises two questions for me:
    • How do we move the old version from history while preserving GFDL, and
    • Where is the appropiate place to move it?
brenneman(t)(c) 13:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the current version covers the fetish very well. It shouldnt be made any larger and has all the needed information. The list of toys can go if Aaron objects to it completely, but that is the only thing I think can go with out subtracting too much from the information given by the article. --OrbitOne 07:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... I'd actually prefer not to comment on that accept to note that I have read it. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? We aren't getting anywhere without thoughts. :) Inter\Echo 18:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All right. That (i.e. The [...] toys can go) seems to be the smallest possible overture without actually saying, "I'll change nothing." I suppose this isn't totally correct - the smallest possible concession would agreeing to take out the words, "There are two basic types of Sissy Babies". However, that hasn't been offered to be removed, either.
  • The "other version" as it exists is actually my attempt at compromise. To be more specific, here are some sections I left in:
    • "Some have stated that they would permanently adopt this role if that option were available. There have been cases of men undergoing sexual reasignment surgery to attempt to live as a Sissy Baby, but no cases of Sissy Babies being able to live in this manner permanently have been reported." Who's stated this? There have been cases, what cases, documented where.
    • Female Sissies - ...there has been some debate... Debate by whom, and where.
    • Most Sissies consider themselves to be submissive. Where is this statement recorded, whose narrative is it.
  • No reliable (e.g. unbiased source) is given, or perhaps even exists. It's all written from personal experiance.
  • I have tried to work out some compromise. Repeatedly. Calmly. Either the offer to only remove the list of toys is some sort of ambit claim (which I would think was bad form) or it's not (which I would think was tremendously bad form.)
  • Some things are actually not negotiable:
  • This is the standard - article must change to reflect the standard, not the other way around.
brenneman(t)(c) 15:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What you have said here seems sensible to me. No claim should be unsupported, which apparently some of what is written here is. This should be removed. What do you say OrbitOne? Inter\Echo 13:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the current article is unsupported. Aaron just still wants "unbiased" sources, but I'm afraid that's just not possible under the way he means it. His definition of unbiased means we are supposed to ask people who aren't Sissy Babies to tell us what Sissy Babies like. Obviously, no information can be obtained that way. The poll conducted on my site was unbiased as I am NOT a sissy baby and have no stake in the outcome of that poll. The information here has been gathered through years of dealing with Sissy Babies and determining their likes and dislikes. It is accurate... and I suspect the problem really is that Aaron does not understand the topic well enough to know it's accurate. And in that case, I don't understand why he is so determined to destroy it. DailyDiapers 18:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I see your view aswell. So it boils down to sources. What can we do to resolve this? Do you want me to just make up my own mind about what stays or what should go, or do you want to try and reach a compromise here? Inter\Echo 20:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

[edit]

Compromise works for me. My suggestions:

  • I can see where the "list of toys" while mostly accurate, is not necessary, and can't be made totally NPOV as there are so many differences in the "toys" employed that the list would need it's own topic. Also the argument can be made that this section is covered by the related articles linked too in the article.
  • I think the sections "Female Sissies" and "Sissy Baby as a Dominent Role" are essential in NPOV as they show the variations from what most would think a Sissy baby is.
  • Also for NPOV I have wanted to add a section describing the arguments over Sissy Babies. IE: Some diaper lovers do not accept sissy babies. Some argue that it is a part of cross dressing or transgender fetishes with diapers simply being another prop.

(edit by User:DailyDiapers)

  • Did I have a previous position, or are you still seeing me and OrbitOne as one person? It's a compromise discussion, I listed what I felt we needed and we could loose. I welcome your opinion. (edit by User:DailyDiapers)
  • Oh my, that is embarrassing! I apologise unreservedly. I even pasted your signature in... I did ask if you were the same person once after some pronoun swapping on unsigned comments, but take at face value that you're not. Again, I apologise for any offense.
    brenneman(t)(c) 00:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a problem Aaron. I assure you we are not the same person. If you would - what are you suggesting as a compromise? (edit by User:DailyDiapers)

That the information regarding dress/costume is presented in the lead paragraph as the defining chracteristic of a Sissy baby. That information regarding furniture and toys be included in this paragraph, as relevent to their place in the larger infantilist group.

That the female sissies section be demoted to subsection of == Types of Sissy Babies == with gender switching and punishment. That these subsections reference verifiable facts, or hearsay from interviews/etc published in reputable news media.

And that a dominance roles section describe typical elements of the roleplay as expected from both partners.

It may also be noted that two recent Votes for Deletion held that Adult baby and ABDL be re-directed to Infantilism. As this is a subsection of that redirected population, it should also be merged into that parent article.
brenneman(t)(c) 05:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good discussion. I'm watching it for now, but if this continues, my work here is done. :) Inter\Echo 20:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the merge suggestion, which I don't agree with (Sissy Baby is not the same as infantalism) I agree with your proposals. (edit by User:DailyDiapers)

Moving forward

[edit]

Made changes to main page. Removed "two versions" tag. Go crazy!
brenneman(t)(c) 04:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Expansion/New Article Creation?

[edit]

Hello there. I have been thinking, this article seems a bit bare-bones, if you get what I mean. The Infantilism article (which is related), is quite extensive, but by comparison the Sissy Baby article is fairly small and insignificant. Any brainstorming or research into possible additions to the article would be nice. The general psychological/feminization/submissive aspects would be good areas to start, as well as the role of dresses, petticoats, lace, etc. etc.

Also, might it be appropriate to create an article about Sissy Becky's site? I am not sure how extensive the membership or knowledge of the site is, but it seems to be fairly popular from my experiences. Just putting up a bit of speculation there.

--Tobias 03:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning the validity of this material, but it still needs references, as some of this stuff is far-out enough to make one wonder. It's an understatement to say that solid references would greatly enhance the quality of this piece. --DanielCD 15:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Legitimacy

[edit]

I ran a Google search for the phrase "sissy baby," having few relevant results. I suppose that the term could possibly be legitimate, though only through use by an unsizable group who identifies with this type of paraphilia, in which case I have no problem with this article sticking around. However, unless someone can locate enough valid support to act as foundation for this article in the first place, then it's probably better off being deleted, as it is otherwise irrelevant (Wikipedia already has an article on infantilism) and manages to present itself rather poorly. Could the editors possibly focus on providing some citations or general resources? If not, then please consider deleting or merging this article with infantilism. Grendel 06:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sissy_baby&oldid=1222731604"